Date: Feb 16, 2013 5:04 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<f219de0c-b554-44a2-9e30-de63f83980d8@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 1:04 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >

> > > On 15 Feb., 23:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So WMs statements are
> >
> > > > there is a line l such that d and l
> > > > are coFIS

> >
> > > Of course, for every n there is a line 1, 2, 3, ..., n that is coFIS
> > .> to the diagonal 1, 2, 3, ..., n.
> >
> > Nope.  a line  is either coFIS to d or it is not.
> >
> > It makes sense to say
> >
> >      For every n there is a line, l(n) such that

>
> increment my OOPs counter


Compared to WM's OOPS counter (which he never acknowledges) yours is
unmoving.
>
> >      the nth FIS of l(n) is the nth FIS of d .
> >      But this does not make l(n) coFIS to d.
> >

> > > > And there is not more than every n.
> >
> > > > there is no line l such that d and l
> > > > are coFIS

> > > That would only be true if there was an n larger than every n
> >
> > ??  The statement is yours.  Are you now withdrawing it.

--